| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |
| Date: | 2005-06-01 15:55:46 |
| Message-ID: | 14606.1117641346@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> 4. Optionally, we set a flag on the table showing the whole table is
> frozen. Anybody writing to this table subsequently will spoil this flag.
> If the flag is set, all forms of VACUUM will return success immediately
> without performing a scan (since it is already in a perfect VACUUM FULL
> and VACUUM FREEZE state).
This bit strikes me as dangerous and not related to the original
proposal. I don't care for the load-already-frozen-data part at all,
either. That's not just giving up WAL protection, that's an outright
MVCC semantics violation, in return for which we get ... not much.
Certainly not any speedup in the LOAD itself.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jochem van Dieten | 2005-06-01 16:00:28 | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-01 15:43:24 | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |